Lord Mandelson

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend always makes excellent points. I was going to talk about Gordon Brown later, but I will do so now. He raised the question back in September. He wanted to know what had gone on, and he was batted away. Has the Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary why the former Prime Minister was batted away? Did that former Prime Minister not have enough respect in No. 10 to get a legitimate answer about what went down? The public deserve to know, and this House deserves to know.

I want to make another point about integrity, which was raised by a number of Members earlier, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith). The Prime Minister, by his own admission, has called into question the integrity of every Member of this House. We all know that trust in politicians is at an all-time low—we see it on the doorstep and in our inboxes. I was at a birthday party with my four-and-a-half-year-old son at the weekend. I was chatting to some parents, and the Mandelson headlines came up. I had to say, “Look, it’s not normal for a billionaire to fly politicians out. We have a pretty strict expenses regime following the expenses scandal.” We cannot move left or right, yet the British public do not trust us, because they think that we take them for granted. I had to explain to those parents that it is not normal to be invited to islands and to have luxuries thrown at you. This was not normal behaviour, yet the Prime Minister knew about this relationship and let it happen. That is a really important point.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend says, the Prime Minister knew, but he also stood at the Dispatch Box in September and said that he had “full confidence” in Peter Mandelson—Lord Mandelson—knowing what he knew. Does my hon. Friend not find that extraordinary?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I find it disgusting. What Epstein did was absolutely disgusting in its own right: he trafficked, he was a child sex offender, and in many ways he was a coward in how he left this world. I wish he had faced the full force of the law. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) talked about enablers and the role that powerful men played. I say to Labour Members that they are at a crossroads. If they really care about Epstein’s victims, they need to ask how this was allowed to happen.

By the way, it is not just about Mandelson and Epstein. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) made a point about Bill Gates. I watched the video of Melinda Gates yesterday, and I was talking to my wife about how horrible it must have been to see the emails and what he was up to. My hon. Friend also mentioned Richard Branson. The reality is that there is clearly a culture of men who thought they were above the law, and the DOJ is grappling with that issue over in America.

We have talked about some very important things in today’s debate, for which I commend hon. Members, but we have to be honest about the fact that this matter came on to our shores. It is possible that there are victims whom we still do not know about, and that criminal investigations still need to happen. I need an assurance from Ministers that if that comes to the fore, the Government will act quickly to make sure that criminal investigations are started. The public require that to help us on the journey towards rebuilding trust, and we should not underestimate the need for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but you just get used to that sort of thing when you have been here for a while.

We should never forget the people outside. We should never forget the Nolan principles. Conservative Members have explained the Nolan principles and their importance, which was perhaps needed by certain Labour Members. I urge the Government to do the right thing.

[Harriet Cross]

My right hon. Friend rightly talks about trust in politics and in politicians, but the issue is that the Prime Minister put so much blind trust in a proven liar that he was willing to forgo process and judgment when appointing him to one of the top diplomatic roles in the country. Why does my right hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister showed such a lack of judgment and such misplaced trust that it has caused this country to be a laughing stock on the international stage?

[Wendy Morton]

That is exactly the point. I do not think it is for me to answer those questions; it is for the Prime Minister to do so, but I will continue to question his judgment. How on earth did he come to appoint Peter Mandelson to this role? It is not just Conservative Members who are asking that; today, we have heard Labour Members asking questions. The Government Benches are quite full now, but the Conservatives led the charge on this topic. In Opposition day debates, I expect to see the Government Benches full, and I expect Labour Members to take points up, debate with us, and defend the position of their Government. How much have we seen of that today? Very little indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree that he should hold his Government to exactly those standards. I am very sorry that he missed my point of order—I recognise that it was not a show-stopper—but that is exactly the point I made: national security concerns are implicit in Humble Addresses. If the Government had put such wording in their amendment as “secret or top secret documents cannot be revealed”, I would have said, “Yes, that is absolutely fair.” But that is the point: there is no requirement to stipulate national security concerns, let alone provide some vague wording about international relationships, because that is already provided for. I thank him for confirming exactly my position.

We have touched on China. I hope that when these documents are released, we will see the full extent of Epstein’s relationship not just with the Putin state, but with the Chinese Communist party. I have deep concerns about the way in which Mandelson had a say about the Government’s China policy. There is no question but that he has been influencing it.

Some questions are still unanswered. As I have said almost every day this week, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 5 December to ask for the details of Mandelson’s severance package. These were not complicated questions: what was the detail of the contract, and will it be published; has any non-disclosure agreement to do with it been signed at any point; when did Mandelson receive his final payment, or is he still being paid by the taxpayer; and what were the details of his severance package? Almost two months on, I have received no response from the Cabinet Secretary—in whom, as we have discussed today almost ad nauseum, we do not have confidence to carry out this inquiry. That is not a personal attack; it is recognition of the fact that he works for the Prime Minister and does not reply to straightforward questions from Members of the House.

[Harriet Cross]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if she struggles today to get answers to those very basic and straightforward questions, we can draw our own conclusions as to the answers?

[Alicia Kearns]

Unfortunately, as Members must slowly learn, where there is a vacuum of silence in this place, our constituents, the great people of this country, see conspiracy, and sadly too often they are right. The Paymaster General has committed to get me answers to my letter, and although he is currently having a conversation with someone else, I gently encourage him that I would like answers to those questions on severance pay today from the Dispatch Box, because I raised the issue on Monday and have received no response. It is in the motion, so please can we have those answers?

I also want briefly to reflect on what has happened over the past week. On Sunday, the Labour party informed the media that it could not strip Mandelson of his membership of the Labour party—perhaps the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) would like to intervene on that, as I suspect he has something to say about the Labour party stripping people of their membership. On Monday, the Government told the House that they cannot legislate as that would not be appropriate or possible, and it was too difficult, despite the entire House offering to sit until 4 am to do so. We then had silence from the Government when Members of the House asked them to refer the matter to the police. It was clear from early doors that this was going to end with the police, and hopefully in our courts, as I have argued it should have done back in 2010.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Ward]

I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Harriet Cross]

Let us suppose that the Minister was appointing a new member of staff and he knew that a candidate had twice lost his job in the past because of misdemeanours. If he also knew that that candidate had continued a relationship with a convicted paedophile, would the Minister give him a job?

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Lady tempts me into hypotheticals that I am not going to get into. [Interruption.]

China and Japan

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I absolutely do. As I have said previously, Britain should become Britain’s biggest customer. We have a procurement budget of £400 billion a year. In my opinion, we do not use that well enough to support British companies, but I am working with the Chancellor and colleagues across the Government to make sure that we do so in future.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We are not returning to the common fisheries policy, and the hon. Lady is completely wrong in what she just said. The medium-term stability that we have delivered for our fishing industry will mean a £360 million investment in upgrading our fleet and in our coastal communities. If she opposes that money going into our fishing communities, she should say so. Secondly—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Harriet Cross]

Sorry, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you. We got there. I call Jim Dickson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Mid-Wales is beautiful, but plans for 200 metre tall wind turbines in Radnor forest—turbines twice the height of Big Ben—will blight the landscape, impact local communities and harm the area’s vital tourism sector, and we are seeing similar proposals across Brecon and Radnorshire. The concerns of local communities, businesses and councils must be properly considered in planning decisions for energy infrastructure, not simply overridden by Government Ministers in Cardiff Bay to meet their own agenda. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Jo Stevens]

The hon. Member obviously does not want energy bills to come down, does not want jobs in mid-Wales and does not want the investment to happen. Labour is the only party committed to our renewable energy revolution. Plaid, the Greens and the Lib Dems all try to block renewable infrastructure, while the SNP rejects the jobs, as we have just heard; and now the Tories and Reform do not want this revolution, but want to scrap net zero altogether.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

My initial glance at the Scottish budget that was announced yesterday suggests that in 2026 there will still be significant uplifts in terms of business rates across Scotland. That is a direct challenge to the claims that we have heard from the Scottish Government in relation to economic growth. I hope that as well as continuing to advocate and make the case to the UK Government, the hon. Lady and her colleagues will take the opportunity to say that Scotland’s high streets are being let down by the Scottish Government as surely as its public services are being let down.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Putting money back into people’s pockets is vital for economic growth, but today the Government have signed the country up to the highest energy bills for offshore energy for the next 10 years, and to bills that we will be paying for 20 years. Can the Secretary of State explain how this will put more money into people’s pockets for them to spend in high streets, rather than just spending it on higher bills?

[Mr Alexander]

Let us start with the facts. Our auction today delivers new renewable power, and building and operating that will be cheaper than building new gas. Let me give the hon. Lady the figures. Here are the key facts: the cost of building and operating new gas—£147 per megawatt-hour; the strike price that we agreed today—an average of £91. That means that the price of wind that we have secured is 40% lower than the cost of building and operating new gas power plants. What the hon. Lady has said is simply not true.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

7. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on introducing a nationwide digital ID system.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

12. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the potential impact of a nationwide digital ID system on levels of digital exclusion.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Cabinet Office Ministers are working closely to deliver the new digital ID scheme. The scheme will be inclusive, secure and effective. It will give the public more control over their data than they have now, and it will make public services easier to access. A major inclusion programme, backed by £11.7 million, will support those at risk of digital exclusion, ensuring that the system is accessible and secure for all as we modernise our public services.

[Ian Murray]

Modernising government was at the heart of our manifesto, and the Government are proposing this national digital ID scheme to modernise our public services, improve security and streamline right-to-work checks. Since we introduced the digital veterans card, it has been downloaded 11,000 times, and 260,000 people have already downloaded the gov.uk app and 13.2 million people have started to use One Login as part of the gov.uk service. In the new year, a public consultation will be launched, alongside wider engagement, which has already begun, with expert organisations and wider stakeholders. A major digital inclusion programme will also be rolled out alongside that.

[Harriet Cross]

The parliamentary petition against digital ID has been signed by more than 3 million people, including many in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. It is the fourth most signed petition in history. Why does the Minister think digital ID is so unpopular?

[Ian Murray]

It is up to the Petitions Committee to schedule those debates, and I am sure the Committee will schedule that debate in Westminster Hall in due course. I can only reiterate that the Government are proposing this national ID scheme to modernise public services, improve security, streamline right-to-work checks and give the public control over their data. I am not quite so sure why the hon. Lady objects to the government modernising. We have analogue government with a digital population, and we live in a new world where the economy is modernising and digitising all the time, and government has to catch up.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that the point about the Government being extremely disappointed is absolutely genuine. I could not have been clearer, from day one, that the Government are extremely disappointed that we will not be proceeding with this trial. However, it is not for Ministers to opine on a decision taken independently of Government. Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The Minister has been asked by numerous people, not least by the shadow Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), when the Home Secretary knew that this case was going to collapse. We have not been given an answer. The Minister has also been asked by numerous people if the Home Secretary made representations; again, we have not been given an answer. These should be relatively straightforward questions with straightforward answers. Will the Minister answer those questions or give a reason as to why he cannot do so?

[Dan Jarvis]

I have done my very best to provide the clarity that hon. Members are asking for. There is, of course, still an unanswered question about the position of the previous Government. The Prime Minister put that point to the Leader of the Opposition last week, and there are a number of former Government Ministers in the Chamber—perhaps they could tell us the answer.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Lady is right; transparency is important. If she will forgive me, I will look carefully at the point that she has made and take it away, but I hope this also means that she will be seeking to support our elections Bill.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I am going to keep this quite basic, because I think this is where a lot of the public will come from. The Government should always want to do everything they can, and more, to keep the British public and our institutions safe, so I do not understand why they will not do everything they possibly can at least to try to bring this to trial—at least to try to give a jury an opportunity to take matters into its hands and consider this case. I do not understand why they are willing to accept advice, and not actually put this matter to trial when they have the opportunity to do so. Will the Minister please commit to publishing all minutes from any meetings at which matters discussed with the CPS, or what the CPS had requested, were asked for?

[Dan Jarvis]

I will keep it basic as well. This Government will do everything that we can to keep the public safe, and the hon. Lady will have heard the response that I gave earlier with regard to publishing issues.

UK-EU Summit

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree—the Conservatives and Reform should go around the country and explain to our constituents why they should pay higher prices. I think they would get a pretty universal response.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?

[The Prime Minister]

The simple fact of the matter is that, under the agreement the Conservatives struck, it was much more difficult for fishermen to sell into the European market. We are making it much easier—it is 72% of their stock. Shellfish can be sold back into that market again, and we have set up a fund for our fishing communities. The alternative, which was to come off the current agreement and then negotiate every year with no certainty at all, would not be good for anyone.

UK-EU Summit

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as being confined to any island. I have already spoken about smart, controlled youth mobility schemes; the previous Government agreed a number of them.

This Government are exercising diplomacy in our national interest. We need only take one look at the trade deals that we have signed with the United States —[Hon. Members: “Terrible!”]—and India in the last fortnight to see that we are delivering for the British people. Conservative Front Benchers shout from a sedentaryposition about the US deal, but they can tell that to the workers at Jaguar Land Rover whose jobs have been saved by the deal.

I can tell the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that I was in Scotland yesterday to talk to the Scotch Whisky Association about the enormous benefits for Scotland of the India deal. He should welcome that deal, not criticise the Government. Britain is back on the world stage, no thanks to the carping from the Opposition

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the point about carping from the Opposition, I will.

[Harriet Cross]

The Minister mentioned that he was in Scotland yesterday, which is wonderful. As a Scottish MP, I am in Scotland every week, and I quite often meet people from distilleries, who have recently said that they are suffering because of the family farm tax that the Government have brought in. Their farmers are downsizing and not investing, which is reducing their supply of grain. Are the Minister and the Government proud of that legacy, and that contribution to the Scotch Whisky Association?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very proud of the extra £25 billion that we have put into the national health service. Apparently, the ludicrous position of the Opposition is that they are in favour of the investment, but they will not tell us exactly how they would raise the money.

I put it to the Opposition: is there any country they actually want a British business to trade with? In government, the Conservatives promised a trade deal with India by Diwali—to be fair, they did not say which Diwali—but they delivered absolutely nothing for the British people. We secure an India trade deal, and they complain about it. We secure an economic deal with the United States—long promised by the last Government, but never delivered—and they do not like that. I like to be constructive, so can I make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith)? Maybe he should change his title to shadow Secretary of State for no business and no trade, because when it comes to the trade deals that we have negotiated, that is the Opposition’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

We have had a strong debate this afternoon, with many contributions on both sides. I thank so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who knows a great deal about this subject, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin)—what a fantastic set of knowledgeable contributions and real concerns about the impending EU surrender summit. It is in the spirit of such rigorous debate that this House finds its strength and purpose.

It has been less than a year since the general election. In that time, this Labour Government have tanked the economy, crushed British business, seen—as we have learned today—100,000 fewer people in employment, driven wealth creators overseas at the rate of one millionaire every 45 minutes, and shattered any signs of economic growth. I am afraid to say that the next item on this bleak agenda of declinism is the betrayal of the 17 million people who voted for this country to leave the European political union. This should come as no surprise to anyone, because those on the Benches opposite—and, I regret, some of those on the Benches to the left of me— voted against Brexit on no fewer than 48 different occasions.

If this debate is reminiscent of the past, it is because that is precisely where some Members wish to take us back to. Ever since they were seduced by Jacques Delors, the Euro-socialist, their hearts have never been in the mission of taking back control of our laws. Next Monday’s EU surrender summit formally marks the start of Labour’s plan to dismantle the powers of not just the Government, but this House, and push us back into the European Union as a passive rule taker. We Conservatives ask, “To what end? Why are the Government capitulating the very same hard-fought Brexit freedoms that permitted the signing of two trade agreements—notwithstanding their limited scope—in the past seven days?”

Had we followed the policies that Labour was advocating in opposition, this Government would never have been able to reach an agreement with the USA or with India. They would not even have been in the room; they would have been one of 28 member nations, resorting to asking—begging—Ursula von der Leyen to perhaps consider putting British interests first. We were right not to follow Labour’s advice then, and the Government would be right to listen to our advice now, yet it appears that they still have not learned. As we heard from many speakers this afternoon, the opportunities of the future will fall to those states that are agile—opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics, space, the creative industries, financial and professional services, and the life sciences.

This country already has a good deal with the European Union. We have a mutually advantageous zero-tariff agreement that is valued at £184 billion in services and £174 billion in goods. Nothing is perfect, and where there are sensible measures—such as pursuing opportunities for mutual recognition—they should be explored. For example, one of the biggest frictions our businesses face today is the denial of the use of e-gates, which was imposed by the European Union out of spite. There was no such small-mindedness from us.

However, the problem we face today is that the Government have failed to come to this House and explain exactly, or at all, what the Prime Minister’s EU reset will look like. We have seen nothing on the Government’s negotiating objectives, their red lines or the supposed benefits, and we have not seen an impact assessment or even an interim update. Of course, I understand there will be finer negotiating details that the Government will not want to share, but that is very different from sharing absolutely nothing. That is disrespectful of Parliament, and forces this House to rely on leaks and read between the lines of Downing Street press handouts. If those leaks are to be believed, we know that Labour is planning on signing up the British armed forces to an EU army, binding our strategic military decision-making powers to bureaucrats in Brussels. [Interruption.] The Minister is very welcome to rule these things out—perhaps he will be more forthcoming than the Paymaster General was earlier.

When it comes to security, there is no bigger challenge than our borders—I think even the Prime Minister recognised that on Monday—but the UK’s request for shared access to a joint illegal migrant database has already been rejected by the European Union. So much for co-operation on security. Defence procurement must never be “pay to play”. I have no idea why the European Union member nations would cut themselves off from the UK’s excellent defence primes, unless this is once again a protectionist industrial policy cloak—and what twisted deal-making trades fishing rights for the French for working more closely together, as we have so many times, on Europe’s defence? We warned that Labour would betray our fishermen, and it has sadly proved us right by putting fishing rights back on the negotiating table.

[Harriet Cross]

My hon. Friend has referred to the betrayal of our fishermen. I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to deny media speculations that the Government are about to consent to multi-year agreements. The fishermen want single-year agreements, which are the international norm. Can the Minister rule that out today?

[Andrew Griffith]

I am afraid the Minister is as talkative as a haddock when it comes to clarifying his objectives, but perhaps he will confound our expectations when he sums up the debate.

Just as the Prime Minister pretends to talk tough on immigration, by the same token he plans to open our borders to an EU youth mobility scheme. Perhaps the Minister will deny that, but it could mean millions from Boulogne to Bucharest. Limited volume schemes with comparable economies whereby the UK is able to decide who comes here are fine in principle. We have such a scheme with Australia, but Australia is 10,000 miles away and its economy is very different from those that we are discussing. The wrong type of youth mobility scheme would disadvantage young British workers who, thanks to this Government, are already struggling to get a foot on the ladder, whether for a job—unemployment is up again today—or to secure a roof over their heads in Britain’s housing market. What part of the Government’s objective involves making things harder for our young people?

What we do see is the Government proceeding at breakneck pace with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Beware of Bills with boring names, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is a Trojan horse, blank-cheque Bill giving Ministers the power to roll back Brexit, sign us up to EU rules and abandon imperial measurements for good, all at the stroke of a pen. It provides unchecked ministerial power to make us a passive rule-taker of Brussels diktat. Let me be clear. The Conservatives are certainly not opposed to co-operation with Europe as one among other markets—that much should be obvious from the hard-fought trade agreement that we obtained under the last Government—but we must not in any circumstances surrender our Brexit freedoms so that the Prime Minister can reassure his next law school reunion that he has undermined our sovereignty.

After the earlier equivocation from the Paymaster General, let me give the Minister—they have been chuntering all afternoon—a final chance to answer these questions once and for all. Can he reassure the millions of people who voted to leave the EU that his surrender summit will not betray their wishes? Will he confirm that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers? Can he reassure taxpayers, or those who have lost their winter fuel allowance or whose benefits are set to be cut, that the UK will not be agreeing to any new payments to the EU? Is he able to confirm, for the benefit of our coastal communities, that there will be no concessions on fishing rights? Can he assure the House that there will be no rule taking, dynamic alignment, or extension of European Court jurisdiction? Will he pledge, in deeds as well as words, that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the successful cornerstone of European security?

If the Minister is not able to provide those assurances, this Government are betraying Brexit. All of the evidence that we have seen today suggests that they are limbering up for a surrender summit to damage Britain’s interests. They are determined to deal away our hard-fought freedoms, and we will lose control of our borders, our laws, our fish and our armed forces. I urge the Minister to come clean and to have the honesty to explain to this House and this country why Labour is preparing to surrender the right of the British people to choose their own destiny. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.